This is why we don’t. And how to get there. (Without the slaves.) (Or Handmaid’s Tale. Or Anti-Semitism)

Whenever I need to sort out part of my house I catch up with the Global Warming ‘file’, as they called stories at Time. Why? Because inevitably I become so exercised, so cross, I use that energy to sort out the attic, the pantry, the storeroom, otherwise my head would explode. This week? The paperwork attic.

Mark Carney, who on the evidence of a couple dozen precinct reports, stole Canada’s election, high-tailed off to Europe last week. This was his second trip since he was parachuted in WEFer style to run a country he abandoned twenty years ago. This ghoul, this creature, is the typical grey man. Not one honest thing comes out of that fish mouth, now emblazoned with the grin of the “winner”. Cheaters never prosper, buddy

.

They have to cheat. Otherwise, they’ll be caught.

Why is Carney so enamoured of Europe? Because the banking architecture he set up at BIS, the Bank of International Settlements, through his headship of Chatham House, at the Bank of England, at Bilderberger where he has ruled the roost for two decades, has failed. Utterly.

In fact, let’s use the description of Carney’s influence by President Obama’s climate genius, physicist Steven E Koonin. A more credentialed fellow it would be hard to find.

Mark Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank and later head of the Bank of England, is probably the single most influential figure in driving investors and financial institutions around the world to focus on changes in climate and human influences upon it. A learned man, with a PhD in economics from Oxford University, he has been an outstanding central banker. Carney is now the United Nations’ Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. He is also a UK advisor for the 26th annual UN Conference of Parties (COP26), a follow-on to the 2015 Paris climate conference that’s due to take place in Glasgow, Scotland, during November 2021. So it’s important to pay close attention to what he says.

No wonder he is wearing the mask of a winner. (With beads of sweat pooling under his Savile Row suits.) He built the financial infrastructure under which we all labor. All the debt, all the misery, the lack of real growth, the steady impoverishment of the lower 70%. The crazy cost of food. Pensioners choosing heat or food.

It’s all him.

Koonin continues:

In a 2015 speech just before the Paris conference, speaking as governor of the Bank of England, Carney laid out many aspects of “the insurance response to climate change.”

Extreme weather costs insurance companies a lot of money, so perhaps it is no wonder that his appeal included a warning about flooding: Despite winter 2014 being England’s wettest since the time of King George III, forecasts suggest we can expect at least a further 10% increase in rainfall during future winters. To support that assertion, he cited Britain’s Met Office “research into climate observations, projections, and impacts.”

Turns out that the models Carney used for this paranoid call to arms were dead wrong. And due to El Nino.

“But the Met Office models Carney cited back in 2014 all turned out to be dead wrong. Rainfall during the six winters after 2014 was well in context with the previous century, and it averaged 278 mm, 39 percent less than the 2014 record and nowhere near the “at least” 500 mm implied by the predicted increase. And a Met Office analysis published in 2018 found that the largest source of variability in UK extreme rainfalls during the winter months was the North Atlantic Oscillation mode of natural variability, not a changing climate.

We all know it was a lie. All of us out here in the Great Unknown, where the many too many live, know it’s a lie. And, finally, Europeans know it’s a lie.

Here’s MEP Christine Anderson last week:

Not only is the climate not changing, it is getting more stable, not less. Every single thing the fanatics claim is false. According to Koonin, who runs through all the math: there is no ocean rise, no increased incidence of hurricanes or tornadoes, no melting of Greenland’s ice sheet. There is no diminution of rainfall or increase of rainfall. The oceans are not heating up in any exaggerated way. We have no idea of the effect of the deep ocean yet, by the way. None. In fact of the variables which go into climate, we probably know about 15% of that which needs to be known before we destroy our economies and choke the lives of billions.

And above all, the measurements we have been using about the past – ice cores, tree rings – are so dodgy, so filled with unknowns and iffy assumptions, that it’s hard to believe that entire careers have been based on said measurements. And their ability to trigger hysteria. Koonin has an entire chapter on this.

The Crux of It

Climate change is based on hatred of our fellow human. Scratch a warmist and you will find hate. Every single time. It is aristocratic hatred, the hatred of the well positioned for the struggling, the hatred of shrunken, half-humans who have been born to privilege and think they earned it.

Prince Philip, 1980.

Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed-not for the natural world, for the people. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more damage they’ll do. We have no option. If useless eaters are not controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in biological weapons disguised as vaccines, starvation, and war.”

-Prince Philip, whose sisters and mother were Nazis and who is the father of the hysteric King Charles, who owns $95 billion worth of real estate.

Steven E Koonin is a theoretical physicist who, as chief scientist at British Petroleum, worked on renewables. Which turned out to be a financial disaster, sold, as these things are, with nauseating virtue signalling.

He then moved to the Department of Energy as Undersecretary for Science under Obama, a tenure he now calls “brief”. His book Unsettled, What Climate Science tells Us and Why It Matters, is an elegant and weirdly oblivious walk-back of the banker/left’s climate policies. Policies which literally shovel billions upon billions out the door, effectively stolen by unethical zealots who tried to reinvent energy production. Oblivious because it is clear that this man knows absolutely nothing about the harm that was caused by the scientific community. They destroyed two generations of economic activity. Let’s not forget sub-Saharan Africa starved of electricity, given solar panels. I’m talking real pain here for hundreds of millions. Everyone outside the charmed circle of the government-funded upper middle class.

Here are his conclusions. The award-winning Unsettled was published in 2021, and the edition I have has a fresh 2023 intro that walks back his earlier work even further.

I’m sorry I cannot drum up respect for this clown, no matter how many titles and professorships and awards he touts. His work, and those of his colleagues, destroyed the scientific enterprise. No one trusts them anymore, except those who are guilty of taking that falsity and making money on it. They took trillions out of the western democracies and threw it away on a lucrative panic.

Koonin now estimates that contribution of humans to carbon emissions to be the equivalent of a fully grown male eating one-half a cucumber every day for a year.

Human influences today amount to just over 2 W/m2, or slightly less than 1 percent of that natural flow (about the same influence as half a cucumber on the daily human diet). – Steven E Koonin,

and:

Two of my married cousins were senior academics, one a biophysicist on the DNA molecule, a dozen awards and endowed professorships, think tank appointments and labs. I adored them, they were important mentors, and crucial to my development. But let me tell you, they lived lush lives, with unlimited respect and praise, and fancy holidays exploring places, like a walking tours through the hill tribes of Pakistan, bracketed by ceremonies and committees and brushes up against the good and the great.

This is how people think of ‘science’ now. This is what climate “science” did.

Climate scientists took the reputation of that class and ruined us. I do not exaggerate, because we are now going to look at the damage, the financial damage. Not only that, but the next set of ruses played on the public, used the same game. Unsettled science sold as gospel, used to make money and ruin most of us. The brainiacs who ran up the 2008 mortgage fraud crash used modelling, Covid used modelling and the Covid vaccines used modelling. Modelling was used to destroy Britain’s farmers during the Hoof and Mouth panic, and it is now being used to sell the bird flu vaccine. Modelling by the U.N.’s Conservation International has been used for thirty years to wrench traditional and indigenous peoples off their lands all over the world. Modelling is Koonin’s thing; he virtually invented it, and for the past fifty years, he has been using more and more computer power to come up with: Oops, we were wrong.

All models are wrong. But some are useful.

-University of Wisconsin statistician George Box said famously in 1978:

And none of them are punished. We still pay for their pensions and their conferences, their swanning around the world being praised and put up in five star resorts.

First let’s look at their ethical underpinning. Using the thinking of the late Stephen Schneider, “a prominent climate researcher”, this is the ethical elision they all used.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

By about 2010, all of them knew the science was not only unsettled but as time went on, completely wobbly, but they decided, they judged, that it didn’t matter. They were serving a higher ethical calling.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” —PAUL WATSON, COFOUNDER OF GREENPEACE.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” —TIMOTHY WIRTH, PRESIDENT OF THE UN FOUNDATION.

“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”—DANIEL BOTKIN, FORMER CHAIR OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA

“[Inaction will cause] . . . by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” —MOSTAFA TOLBA, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM, 1982

“[Within a few years] winter snowfall [in the UK] will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” —DAVID VINER, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, UK Climate Program

“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” —MARK TOWNSEND AND PAUL HARRIS, QUOTING A PENTAGON REPORT IN THE GUARDIAN, 2004

They took their authority and stampeded us. “Ethically”, they allowed for geo-engineering to “shut out the sun”, and which is poisoning the land, water and skies, and everyone who lives beneath their aerozolized metals spun out of planes. They justified the moral underpinning of population draw-down. Arguably the engineered Covid and the engineered “vaccine” was meant to get rid of the expensive elderly, and draw down fertility. When we count it up, as we eventually will, I bet they will have killed more people than Mao and the Cultural Revolution. They destroyed the hopes of three generations. They bankrupted every country where they inveigled themselves into power. Think your country isn’t bankrupt? Look at your debt, your deficits and your unfunded liabilities and get back.

But hey! This clown got to have dinner with Prince Phillip who was, apparently, very au fait with the science. I bet he was. He was a major proponent of the Limits to Growth/Club of Rome crowd, and it wasn’t just an idea to him and his ghastly friends. It was a plan.

This is what that plan cost. This is what politicians and kings and the banks have to weasel out of without starting a conflagration that ruins even more of civil peace.

All these regulations are written at the U.N. and transmitted to every country, under the various treaties each country negotiated with the U.N. Since climate panic is well advanced in left-of-center governments, pretty much all of them comply. Even if the right “wins”, the runner up gets to salt the bureaucracies with his or her people.

At no time and in no place is the cost to business counted in any real way. In fact, even right of center outfits like Forbes put “burden” in quotes, as if the private sector is so rich, the cost is negligible.

The smaller the company, sales under $5 million say, the greater the cost:

Compliance costs for each employee making $50,000 are $5,000. A company with 5-10 employees faces upwards of $100,000 in compliance costs. In the E.U. it is $150,000. The smallest firm – less than five employees – spends 250 hours annually on paperwork for climate compliance. A firm with under $5 million in sales would spend 754 hours a year on paperwork. Paperwork for each employee, once you finish all the lefty requirements and fees and fines and contributions, double the cost of employing someone. At. Least.

In the E.U., compliance costs for climate alone are doubled.

Setup costs for complex emitters is $500,000, and annual costs which include CEMS (continuous monitoring emissions services), advanced software, training, data collection equipment maintenance stands around $200,000. Cap and trade costs in California are an additional $100,000 ++.

Reports include emissions by gas type – CO2,CH4, N2O. Sector specific complexities, food processing vs refinery.

This is the how effective this has been. I can grab this chart from virtually any country that bought into this scam.

In Canada – and generally multiply by 10 for the U.S., and 15 for the EU – we spend $20 billion a year funding green initiatives. We committed $93 billion in tax credits for “green energy” in 2022. In the U.S., that would amount to $1 trillion a year in direct subsidy to the richest people on earth. Annually. Annually. In the E.U., where renewables are sold on the market with the government giving tax subsidies, the cost is 1.5 trillion euros.

In the E.U., around 500 billion euros are spent every year on various forms of climate compliance regulation.

In very rough terms, industrialized economies in the west are now spending ten percent of their GDP complying with a fiction. A fiction that has been invented, fleshed out, and which employs hundreds of thousands of activists across the west in pushing the fiction. This is called misallocation of resources, which has a multiplier effect in opportunity cost which is so far unmeasured. But think the difference between Dubai and … anywhere. Without the indentured humans.

The result?

Deindustrialization. The fall of Germany. Which, by the way, is the backbone of Europe, the source of all the money. The country that guarantees the vertiginous debts.

This is what happened in Germany when wind energy production failed three times in one month:

And this is what happened to electricity prices when wind energy collapsed. They shot up, doubled. Across the region.

Who does this hurt? It hurts everyone but those invested in this fiction who make bank like mad. It raises the price of everything, it destroys initiative because the cost of entry of making anything skyrockets, especially if somehow you use energy to make or produce or retail anything, which is to say every business. It ruins pensioners, it cheats the young of opportunity, and it turns life into grinding difficulty for almost all of us.

All this, all green is based on the hate of your fellow man. Scratch a warmist, find someone who would gladly send you to a camp.

What do these costs, which vary only via their titles, do to real people? People who perhaps, eat food to live?

In the U.K., pensioners choose between heat and food. Even the BBC reports this. In April, the Labour government cut the fuel subsidy to old ladies who can’t afford to eat. That’s how much this crowd hates.

The only politician, the only politician fighting this is Trump.

We are at the beginning of a necessary takedown of the nonsense. It has crippled our lives for twenty years. Without this plague of humans, their work chipping away at our collective wellbeing for the past fifty years, we would be Dubai. Every country would have grown, its economy doubling, the wealth of its people doubling. Any problems of a trace gas would be solved by the doubling of our knowledge base.

Enough, This must end.

I apologize to Steven Koonin for calling him a clown, twice.

https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/every-city-should-be-dubai-that-rich